The Claim
“Spent $6 million on a movie which is supposed to deter people from fleeing genocide, war crimes, torture and other persecution. No English dubs or subtitles are available.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual elements of this claim are accurate. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (under Immigration Minister Peter Dutton) commissioned and produced a telemovie titled Journey at a total cost of approximately $6 million (specifically $5.97 million) [1].
The cost breakdown, confirmed by government tender documents and Senate estimates, was:
- $4.34 million paid to Put It Out There Pictures (Sydney-based production company) for film production [1]
- $1.63 million paid to Lapis Communications for promotion and advertising [1]
The 90-minute telemovie was filmed across three countries with cast and crew from 13 countries. It premiered on Afghan television in March 2016, and was also screened in Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq [1][2].
Regarding the language availability claim: The film was produced in and made available in Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Arabic, and Farsi - languages spoken in the target source countries [1][3]. The Sydney Morning Herald and other sources confirmed that "it will not be available in English" [1]. This was an intentional decision since the target audience was potential asylum seekers in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq, not English-speaking audiences.
Missing Context
1. The Broader Anti-People Smuggling Strategy
The claim omits that this telemovie was part of a larger, ongoing communication campaign under "Operation Sovereign Borders." The Department stated the film was a "key part" of their anti-people smuggling strategy and was designed to reach a potential audience of 50 million people [1][2]. The government cited market research showing that telemovies were "a proven way to reach and influence the target audience" in these regions [3].
2. Labor Precedent
The claim fails to mention that the Labor government also commissioned similar communication materials. According to the Sydney Morning Herald's reporting: "It's not the first time the department has strayed into drama. Under Labor, it commissioned a radio drama, but that was much less expensive" [1]. This demonstrates that using dramatic media for deterrence messaging was not unique to the Coalition - though the scale and cost differed significantly.
3. The "No English" Rationale
The lack of English dubbing or subtitles was intentional and strategic, not an oversight. The film was specifically targeted at populations in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan - where the languages used (Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Arabic, Farsi) are spoken. English would have been irrelevant to the intended audience [1][3].
4. Policy Justification
The government defended the expenditure as necessary for "saving lives" by discouraging dangerous boat journeys. The production company's website stated the film aimed to "educate and inform audiences in source countries about the futility of investing in people smugglers, the perils of the trip, and the hardline policies that await them if they do reach Australian waters" [1][2].
Source Credibility Assessment
Canberra Times - The original source referenced is Fairfax Media's Canberra Times (now part of Nine Entertainment). Fairfax was generally considered a reputable mainstream media organization, though the Canberra Times had a smaller circulation than the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age. The article appears to have been syndicated or similar to the SMH reporting.
YouTube - A YouTube link without specific context makes this source difficult to assess for credibility. The video could have been an official trailer, a leaked copy, or commentary on the film.
The claim itself comes from mdavis.xyz/govlist, a Labor-aligned source, which provides important context for potential framing bias.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes - though at a smaller scale.
According to Sydney Morning Herald reporting on this exact issue: "It's not the first time the department has strayed into drama. Under Labor, it commissioned a radio drama, but that was much less expensive" [1].
Additionally, the Rudd Labor government introduced the "PNG Solution" in July 2013, which was the foundational policy that established that asylum seekers arriving by boat would never be settled in Australia [4][5]. This policy was later continued and reinforced by the Coalition's "Operation Sovereign Borders."
The use of communication campaigns to deter asylum seekers was not a Coalition invention - both major Australian parties have employed deterrence messaging, though the specific $6 million telemovie represented a significant escalation in spending and production values compared to previous efforts.
Labor's offshore detention policy (which began in 2012-2013) cost over $1 billion annually by 2015-2016 [4], far exceeding the cost of this telemovie, demonstrating that deterrence-based approaches were bipartisan, even if the specific methods differed.
Balanced Perspective
Criticisms of the Expenditure
Human rights organizations and refugee advocates raised legitimate concerns:
Amnesty International criticized the expenditure, with Refugee Coordinator Graham Thom stating: "That money could have been spent to address the root causes of why people are forced to flee their homes, used to support people in transit, or put towards increasing and improving the efficiency of resettling people to Australia" [2][3].
Refugee Council of Australia CEO Paul Power agreed that the money could have been better spent on practical support for displaced people [2].
Comparative budget context: The film's budget exceeded the combined budgets of iconic Australian films Priscilla Queen of the Desert (
$2M), Wolf Creek ($1M), and The Castle ($750,000) - even when adjusted for inflation (combined ~$5.8M in 2016 dollars) [1].Producer's own words: Trudi-Ann Tierney, the director of Put It Out There Pictures, previously described her work on Afghan television as "propaganda" and part of "psychological operations" in her book Making Soapies in Kabul [1].
Government Justification
The Coalition government defended the expenditure with several arguments:
Life-saving intent: The stated purpose was to prevent deaths at sea by discouraging people from attempting dangerous boat journeys with people smugglers.
Research-based approach: The Department cited "independent research in these countries has revealed misunderstandings and false rumours about Australia's policy, and a perception that Australia remains a preferred destination country for those seeking to travel illegally by boat" [1][2].
Effectiveness: The government claimed "initial feedback from viewers has been positive" [1].
Scale of reach: With a potential audience of 50 million and screenings across multiple countries, the per-viewer cost was relatively low.
Innovation: The Department described this as the first time such "innovative methods" had been used to reach the target audience directly [3].
Broader Political Context
Both major Australian parties have pursued deterrence-based asylum seeker policies. The Rudd Labor government (2013) and the Abbott/Turnbull Coalition governments (2013-2022) both maintained that asylum seekers arriving by boat would not be settled in Australia. The telemovie represented a continuation and intensification of this bipartisan deterrence approach, using a higher-budget dramatic format.
Key context: This was not unique to the Coalition - deterrence messaging was a bipartisan approach, though the specific high-cost telemovie format was a Coalition initiative that significantly exceeded previous Labor efforts.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim accurately states that the Coalition government spent approximately $6 million on a telemovie (Journey) intended to deter asylum seekers, and that no English dubbing or subtitles were available (by design, since the target audience spoke other languages). However, the claim presents this as unique to the Coalition without acknowledging that:
- The Labor government had previously commissioned similar (though less expensive) deterrence media (radio dramas)
- The broader offshore detention and deterrence policy framework was actually initiated by the Rudd Labor government in 2013
- The lack of English was strategic targeting, not an oversight
- The dramatic framing omits that this was part of a larger, ongoing anti-people smuggling strategy that had bipartisan elements
The claim is factually accurate on the core elements but lacks important context about precedent and the bipartisan nature of Australia's asylum seeker deterrence approach.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim accurately states that the Coalition government spent approximately $6 million on a telemovie (Journey) intended to deter asylum seekers, and that no English dubbing or subtitles were available (by design, since the target audience spoke other languages). However, the claim presents this as unique to the Coalition without acknowledging that:
- The Labor government had previously commissioned similar (though less expensive) deterrence media (radio dramas)
- The broader offshore detention and deterrence policy framework was actually initiated by the Rudd Labor government in 2013
- The lack of English was strategic targeting, not an oversight
- The dramatic framing omits that this was part of a larger, ongoing anti-people smuggling strategy that had bipartisan elements
The claim is factually accurate on the core elements but lacks important context about precedent and the bipartisan nature of Australia's asylum seeker deterrence approach.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (7)
-
1
Taxpayers charged $6 million for Immigration Department telemovie
The immigration department has spent $6 million of taxpayers' cash making a telemovie drama to deter would-be asylum seekers.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Telemovie aimed at deterring asylum seekers condemned by human rights groups
The more than $6m spent on an Australian government film targeting Afghan asylum seekers could have been could have been put to better use, human rights groups say.
SBS News -
3
Australian movie encourages asylum seekers to stay in their homeland
The Australian government has released a telemovie in war-torn regions with the aim of stopping asylum seekers heading for Australia by boat.
Mashable -
4
The Cost of Labor's Open Borders Disaster: Rudd's Boat People Legacy
A Decade of Chaos: The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Border Catastrophe
Ozeunleashed Substack -
5
Labor's refugee shame ten years on—End offshore detention
The last ten years of the Australian government’s abuse of refugee rights are bookended by Labor governments.
Solidarity Online – Socialist organisation in Australia affiliated to the International Socialist Tendency -
6
This is the $6 million feature film you paid for to keep refugees out of Australia
It's not a happy tale. But it is a hell of a lot of on-water matters for a government not keen to speak about them.
Crikey -
7
Here's The $6M Anti-Refugee Telemovie The Government Didn't Want You To See
Yesterday, Fairfax published a story about Journey, a telemovie produced by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection at a cost of $6 million to try and deter asylum seekers from coming to Australia. The movie – whose budget, they pointed out, eclipses the combined cost it took to make The Castle, Wolf Creek and Priscilla […]
PEDESTRIAN.TV
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.